The pilot was conducting the return leg of a charter flight, when weather conditions deteriorated about 130 kilometres from the destination. Thunderstorms were evident on either side of track and converging ahead of the aircraft. The pilot elected to return to the DEPARTURE aerodrome, however approaching this strip the weather again deteriorated to the point where flight in visual conditions was not possible. After searching for over an hour to find a clear route to another aerodrome, the pilot elected to land in what appeared to be a suitable paddock. During the landing roll, the nosewheel sank into the soft surface and the nosegear was dislodged. The pilot had only limited experience in operating in the Northern Territory during the wet season, and had probably not received sufficient training and supervision from the aircraft operator.

During the pre-landing checks, the pilot noted that no pressure was available from the left brake pedal. The strip has a slight slope, and the pilot elected to land up the slope in light quartering tailwind conditions. The aircraft bounced twice after touchdown and the pilot commenced a go around. The aircraft veered off the strip and collided with several trees before coming to rest 50 metres from the centre of the strip. The left brake had lost pressure because a worn seal had allowed air into the brake line. The pilot advised that the brake problem did not affect the selection of landing direction. It was considered that directional control was lost during the attempted go around, when the aircraft was affected by a wind gust at a critical stage of the flight.

Witnesses reported that after take-off in hot and gusty crosswind conditions the aircraft did not climb away normally. It passed over the boundary fence at a low height and then remained at about tree-top height for about one kilometre. The aircraft was then seen to turn sharply to the left before disappearing from view. It was subsequently discovered to have struck the ground while in a steep nose-down attitude, and been completely destroyed by a post impact fire. No evidence was found of any pre-impact defect or malfunction of the aircraft which might have contributed to the accident. The take-off had been attempted with the aircraft approximately 20 above the maximum allowable weight. It was considered that the combination of aircraft weight and ambient weather conditions caused a significant reduction in the aircraft climb performance. The available performance was insufficient to allow the aircraft to clear rising ground beyond the aerodrome boundary.

After completing an instrument flight at night, the pilot reported his arrival in the circuit area of the destination aerodrome. The aircraft did not land and a search was commenced. The burnt out wreckage was located the following morning. A detailed techical examination of the wreckage did not reveal any evidence of a defect or malfunction which might have contributed to the accident. operation, the pilot did not hold an Instrument Rating. Weather conditions at the destination were suitable for visual operations, but it was a very dark night with no ground lighting other than the runway lights. There was a strong crosswind in the landing direction and moderate turbulence in the area. The post-mortem examination of the pilot indicated a significant level of blood alcohol concentration. It was likely that the pilot lost control of the aircraft while manoeuvring to land in difficult conditions.

At the conclusion of a dual check flight, the student landed the aircraft into a light north-westerly wind. The landing roll was completed about half way along the 853 metre strip, and the pilot turned the aircraft around preparatory to taxying back to the upwind threshold. The instructor left the aircraft at this point, after briefing the student on the solo sequences he wished him to practice. Shortly afterwards, full power was applied as the student commenced a take-off downwind. The aircraft failed to become airborne, collided with a fence and overturned. The student was subsequently unable to give any reason for his decision to commence the take-off roll from other than the threshold of the strip.

The flight was intended to be a revision exercise in cross-wind circuits and landings. The first landing was completed satisfactorily and the student subsequently advised that the flaps were raised to the take-off setting and full power was applied. However, the instructor reported that only partial power was applied and he said to the student "I've got the flaps". The student believed the comment was "Take it off", and she responded by closing the throttle. The instructor took control and continued the take-off, but the tail tie-down ring struck the boundary fence and the aircraft then collided with mounds of soil beyond the fence. The investigation was unable to resolve the apparent confusion which existed in the cockpit with regard to the amount of power the student applied or the phraseology which was used by the instructor. At the point where the student closed the throttle, the instructor considered that insufficient strip distance remained to stop the aircraft.

During mustering operations the pilot landed on two occasions in order to visually check the amount of fuel remaining. Although the second of these checks revealed an estimated endurance of 20 minutes, the pilot elected to carry out a further short mustering task before returning to the refuelling area about 4 kilometres away. While enroute to the refuelling point the engine suddenly stopped. The pilot entered auto-rotation but had to manoeuvre to avoid trees and the aircraft subsequently landed heavily. The investigation revealed that the aircraft was serviceable but the engine had failed due to fuel exhaustion. The last landing to check the fuel quantity was probably made on sloping ground and could account for the overestimation of fuel remaining, although below required reserves, at that time.

Circumstances:

The pilot reported that during a landing on a road, and an attempted go-around, he was unable to prevent the aircraft veering to the left and colliding with a tree and a fence. The flare for landing had been commenced early resulting in a low forward speed and high nose attitude on touchdown. The pilot was only able to see the road through his side window, and it is believed that the slope of the road was a major factor in the loss of directional control.

The pilot had just completed a low-level turn to down wind when the helicopter began to sink. He applied power and collective control but was unable to arrest the sink and the tail rotor struck the ground. The helicopter then rotated 3-4 turns to the right and dropped heavily onto its skids. The pilot shut down the engine. Fire broke out and the passenger was struck by the still rotating main rotor as he ran around the tail to reach the boom-mounted fire extinguisher. The investigation did not reveal any fault with the aircraft that might have contributed to the accident. The reason for the helicopter sinking after the turn could not be positively determined.

The helicopter was weaving back and forth driving cattle. Height was about 30 ft and airspeed about 25 kt. The pilot heard a loud bang and believed the engine had failed. An autorotation was carried out into trees. The cause of the loud bang and the power loss reported by the pilot could not be determined. There was no suitable area available for the subsequent autorotational landing initiated by the pilot.